CHAPTER 16 A CRITIQUE OF THE ATTORNEY AND THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED

• Jurisdiction: United States

Mineral Patenting Procedures
(Feb 1975)
CHAPTER 16
A CRITIQUE OF THE ATTORNEY AND THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED
Hall F. Susie, Chief, Branch of Minerals
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Phoenix, Arizona

After the approval of the mineral survey if one is required, the first and one of the more important actions to be taken is posting of notice of intention to apply for patent. The notice of the application which is to be published is equally important. These two documents constitute notice to any rival claimants or others with an interest in the lands that a patent application is pending. Extreme caution must be exercised in the preparation of these notices.

If the claims are located by legal subdivision, the misplacement, ommission or insertion of a comma or a simple typographical error in the legal description in the notices can completely change the acreage and physical location of the claims. In the metes and bounds description of claims taken by mineral survey, it is imperative that each bearing and distance be accurate or the description will not close. A metes and bounds description must be so complete that a person, armed with the description, can go on the ground and trace the boundaries of the claims being applied for. The exclusion of conflicting claims and other lands should be set out with sufficient clarity so that there can be no mistake as to the applicant's intentions. Vague exclusions can invite an adverse claim.

It is not unusual to have to require an applicant to post a new notice of intention because the original notice is defective. The most common defects are errors in legal descriptions or metes and bounds descriptions. Accuracy in these descriptions cannot be stressed too strongly.

[Page 16-2]

We have encountered situations where the notice of intention stated that it was posted on a particular date and the proof of posting gave a different date. These are time consuming problems which must be clarified.

We have even had instances where the proof of posting showed that the notice was posted outside the limits of the claim. Needless to say, the notice of intention must be posted in a conspicuous place on the claim.

We are occasionally requested to check a notice of intention before it is posted and before the application is filed. Pre-adjudication is an unsound practice and is unfair to other applicants who have applications pending. Without the complete application file before us, we cannot judge whether the proposed notice is complete and accurate in all details. Mineral patent applications are adjudicated in the order in which they are received and most offices have a backlog of such cases. Checking a proposed notice doubles the work since it will have to be rechecked when the application is filed and reached for adjudication. This extra time could be better spent on an existing application.

The notice for publication contains essentially the same information as the posted notice of intention so I won't dwell on the published notice too much. I would like to emphasize, however, that it should be prepared with the same view to accuracy as is the notice of intention. We invariably request the publisher to furnish us with a galley proof or copy of the first publication so we can check it for accuracy and have any errors

[Page 16-3]

corrected in future...